Sorry, but you're grasping at straws. The Science Channel introduces these scientists and explain where they got their degrees. All it shows is that scientists are great science fiction writers. They incessantly contradict history and make up their own. All it takes is common sense & a basic knowledge of the birds & the bees to see why monkeys can't breed humans descendant and what causes sediment in rock layers all over the world. Since scientists don't even have common sense, then you're right, the Science Channel is nothing more than science fiction.

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Sorry, but I heard about the giant tsunami on the Science Discovery Channel and then again on the History cChannel. So it absolutely did come from scientists

These are the same channels that regularly show programs on UFOs and ghosts. These programs are entertainment. None of what you see on these ridiculous shows are from scientific journals.

And the only "evidence" for evolution is looking at skulls and bones and imagining what they could be. That's called science fiction, not science. So it's about as much evidence as looking at a woman who looks like someone I know then claiming that she's related to that person. That's called speculation, not fact.

Fortunately, that's not all evolution relies on. The bones are one small piece of the puzzle - evolution would stand WITHOUT any fossils at all, simply from OBSERVED CHANGES IN EXTANT SPECIES. If you'd like to discuss all of this, start another thread - it's not really relevant to the flood, except in noting that fossils are sorted as evolution predicts in the geologic column, and nowhere near what would be predicted in a massive flood model.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The closest thing to a real world-wide flood is the rising of the sea level by about 200 feet when the ice cap of the last ice age melted. As I understand, it started about 11,000 years ago and ended around 5500 BCE with our current sea level. Again, nothing at all like what creationists are looking for, but I'm sure that sea-shore settlements throughout the world would have noticed.

These are the same channels that regularly show programs on UFOs and ghosts. These programs are entertainment. None of what you see on these ridiculous shows are from scientific journals.

While these are not primary sources they often do a very good journalist job of presenting good information in a digestible way. Of course, there is junk on there too but it is not to be totally ignored; just used as a jumping off point to find out more.

You are neglecting the very real possibility that our source, Refpunk, has gotten this horridly wrong just like everything else he has posted.

Sorry, but I heard about the giant tsunami on the Science Discovery Channel and then again on the History cChannel. So it absolutely did come from scientists.

Either you're making this up, or you misunderstood. No scientist would ever propose that the sedimentary layers of the planet came from a worldwide tsunami, or from a giant ice melt, because such possibilities are inconsistent with the evidence. I explained this before but it bears repeating, because what I'm telling you is the accurate information about what scientists actually believe about the origins of sedimentary layers, and this is what you actually have to address. We agree with you that a worldwide tsunami or a giant ice melt are ridiculous explanations for the origin of the planet's sedimentary layers. Trust me that you will find no such proposals in any geology textbook.

What scientists actually believe is that these ancient sedimentary layers formed in the same way sedimentary layers form today, which is gradually through the process of erosion in higher regions and deposition in lower regions. That deposition takes place most easily in low lying regions explains why most sedimentary deposits are marine in nature, since nothing is lower in any given area than seas. The fossils we find in sedimentary layers tell us what life existed when the layers formed.

And the only "evidence" for evolution is looking at skulls and bones and imagining what they could be.

You're drifting off-topic when you start addressing the evidence for evolution. There are other threads for that.

Sorry, but it can't be erosion because the sedimentary layers are IN THE MIDDLE of the rock layers. If it was erosion then the top parts of the rock layers would have eroded away. So that's another example of scientists not thinking things through well enough because of their eagerness to deny the bible.